Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
boehner, basically had a deal in place, it ended up getting blown up at the last minute. i think there is a, perhaps, a new conciliation on both sides. i think they were waiting for the election to get over. i think the attitudes are positive on both sides. and i think they've got the framework for a deal already set up from last year. so i don't think that there are any closer but i also don't think they were that far away last year in 2011. >> do you think that closing the loopholes would be enough for a deficit reduction package? >> it doesn't appear that that's going to raise enough revenue to get to where the democrats want that to be. republicans say they don't want to raise rates. there are some -- there's some budget chicanery that can go on in terms of dealing with one baseline instead of another baseline. that's what it looked like boehner wanted to do last year. there are a lot of different options here. it's interesting, bill kristol from the weekly standard appeared to be talking to grover norquist, the anti-tax activist in those comments that he played earlier, talk
, the president is meeting with john boehner, the first face-to-face talk. in december 2010, you called your plan the moment of truth. almost two years later, but moment are we at now? >> i think this is the magic moment. a moment when our generation has the chance to really do something about this problem that we created. it is our generation that got us into this mess. i think we have a good chance. yet a second term democrats president who has come out and said he is willing to put entitlements on the table. big deal. you have a speaker, a republican speaker who really gets it. he understands the deaths of the problems they face. he has said the are going to put revenues on the table. big move. we got half the members of the senate already saying they will support a balanced plan. which makes a lot of sense. we have the business community lined up firmly for doing something. most importantly, we have the fiscal cliff. where if we go over it, we are going to face the most predictable economic crisis in history. for all of us in here, it is also the most avoidable. i think this is the magic mome
with boehner. but might be the beginning of bargain point. but you get 820 billion. so there's another 800 billion. at this point, the others are saying no cuts to medicare, social security, or anything else. and they have to find another 800 billion. >> the president did not say -- >> we know he has to cut some of those. >> my guess is the gop is saying they're looking at a trillion dollars as the number. >> and you saw what paul ryan said. the house was re-elected. so people re-elected those people in the house for a reason. it's a nonstarter. it's not going to happen. it's not going to be 1.6 billion. 1.6 trillion. to get to four trillion, that would be 2.4. so we said that. he'll go not 3-1 like simpson bowles. he's go one and a half to one. >> that's not going to happen either. >> but what bothers me -- >> the problem is nothing is going to happen. >> what bothers me is i do think you can get to a point where you raise taxes too much and you don't cut spending enough, where you're just funding entitlements by raising taxes and you don't do anything about it. if he had his way, i reall
to make john boehner's life easier. you know, if ever--you know, you keep seeing this clip of george bush talking about all the political capital he has gained, right? this is the second electoral landslides. >> caller: the first thing that george bush did with that political capital was to privatize social security. that was the beginning of the end. that's when his second term got broken along before all the bad stuff happened. >> stephanie: you talk about this a lot, too, what happens on the sunday shows. >> caller: i took this week off by the way. >> stephanie: i don't know if you saw this, but this is what drives you and i crazy not just about the democratic party but mainstream media. this is the question that was asked of schumer. >> would you like to see the president bring him in for the negotiations over the fiscal cliff. >> caller: shoot me now. >> stephanie: really? >> caller: why? >> stephanie: really the guy that just lost by a landslide. >> caller: first of all, if you were hiring the guy why would you hire the guy? why would you bring aboard the guy whose economic plan was
to bottom here. it's just that there's not as many. >> if you saw a headline, boehner-obama to agree to long-term solution, you would hit buy first on com? >> we no longer have to worry about rising above? >> i think we'll see that as a joke. >> only up 3% to 5% between now and tuesday. that's not their focus. >> i understand. >> but remember when germany went down, when the german forces went down. those are countries that are dominated by rich people. a lot of those companies are plutocrasies. i think when their market went down, they said holy cow, maybe we ought to do something, maybe monty ought to get together, our country t.a.r.p., that first vote, i think people said, okay, i'm going to have to work the rest of my life, there goes my 401(k) and the congressmen rise above. i hope it doesn't take that. i hope it didn't. >> we do have some media news today, viacom is out with some numbers. >> viacom is not as bad as i had feared. the market numbers down about 6% for the company which is perhaps a little bit better than might have been expected. if you take a look over the last few weeks
of influence in terms of those races. before hand, speaker boehner had a hard time getting some of his more conservative members to buy in to certain concrete hiatt -- compromises. going forward, we will have to see if the tea party conservatives will seem to have the same support. the president now has the upper hand and when he talks to speaker boehner he will have to take that message back and he gets a little bit more behind him. >> week and a shop with a meeting between the leaders and the white house. what is the dynamic? >> it will be very interesting to see. hopefully we will hear from them exactly what their conversation was with the president. it is unlikely that we're going to see a detailed agreement on specific issues. are we going to hear about tax breaks or how entitlement reform is going to happen in the deal? on not sure. these figures are going to be out there. they're all going to be scrambling to set the tone in the way that they want to set it. of they will have discussions like the democratic leaders also say let these are the areas where we made clear to republican le
in congress are another. they have to come together. speaker boehner said he's willing to entertain more revenue. the president should take him up on that offer and they ought to come together and find some way through this. the republican party has got to take a good luook at what its future holds but a good start will be coming together to solve this problem. >> governor, nancy pelosi of course out this morning says she's going to run again for some leadership in the congress. is that a signal that the white house is going to remain more partisan perhaps than some hope? >> actually, i don't think so. you know, nancy pelosi was the one who produced the votes for the financial bailout. you all recall that. there weren't republican votes even when president bush proposed it and secretary paulson. nancy found the votes. nancy is good at finding the votes out of our progressive wing and the president will need votes from our progressive wing and nancy is a good person to do that. >> we'll see how things go down this afternoon and later in the week. governor, lanhee good to see you back. don
can tell you that the guys in the house and boehner, they really want to do this, this limiting deductions, limiting loopholes, raising effective rates, but lowering nominal rates. they want to do it that way but the president may say no and those guys in the house will say no and we might, it might happen. >> it might, but look, this is a leadership moment. we have a a leader who now has second term. he's a president. he's a fascinating individual in many respects. he's part of the problem. >> what gives you any indication he'll lead in this case? >> maybe he'll wake up to the fact that he has a chance to cut through the polarization and leave a winning legacy. this is his chance to rise above. give him a button. >> there you go. thank you for that, steve. we have more ahead from steve. coming up, we're going to talk about several stocks on the move ahead of the opening bell. we'll get down to "mad money's" jim cramer. "squawk on the street," jim cramer right after this. sometimes investing opportunities are hard to spot. you have to dig a little. fidelity's etf market tracker
of the fact that they're worried about what's not going to happen. after the election, boehner came out, thought he'd move some, and then obama came out the next day, and in the early part of his speech, he looked good. and all of a sudden he starts digging in. if you look at what the stock market did, it immediately dropped. came back a little bit that day, but immediately dropped. that's what's in people's minds and it's scaring the heck out of them. we have to have some solution. >> when we look to europe, it's a very similar scenario. we have all these issues revolving around greece and maybe to a lesser extent, spain, and it seems about the same dynamics. that it isn't results oriented, it's idle the car and hope things get better while you're sitting in there, hunkered down. >> that's absolutely the case. they have been spinning their wheels. fortunately for us, we've gotten away from the european situation, somewhat. because it looks like our economy can gain some traction. but it's immediately going to grind to a halt if we don't see something. >> you know, there's one area, the
.6 would be 1.5 to 1, when he was with boehner, 800, wanted another 4. >> you were in the room so you know. >> first of all, since we talk about bowles-simpson so much, bowles-simpson has a 1:1 ratio. >> it doesn't. >> i thought it's 1:4. >> it's 1:3. >> in the way the bowles-simpson frame was put out something people didn't realize was that in terms of the revenue number they weren't counting the expiration of the high income tax cuts which they proposed to get rid of. apples to apples, in terms of the way people are currently adding up their math, it's approximately a 1:1 ratio. >> erskine bowles said you should look at 3:1 in terms of spending cuts to revenue. >> i'm just saying what was in bowles-simpson. >> let's not forget about growth, we need to stimulate growth and a lot of it on the innovation side. >> david thank you, appreciate it i put away money. i was 21, so i said, "hmm, i want to retire at 55." and before you know it, i'm 58 years old. time went by very fast. it goes by too, too fast. ♪ but i would do it again in a heartbeat. [ laughs ] ♪ ♪ . >>> welcome back, everyb
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)